Standing Committee G

[Part II]

[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]

Education Bill

[Continuation from column 232] 
 On resuming—

Clause 18 - Governing bodies

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 240, in page 11, line 36, after 'regulations' insert
'which shall be approved under the affirmative resolution procedure'.
 I am beginning to feel that I could move an amendment to this effect in my sleep. [Interruption.] At least one Labour Member is awake or there would not have been that sedentary intervention. 
 The purpose of the amendment is to highlight the Government's regrettable reluctance to allow any proper parliamentary control or scrutiny and to attempt to put it right. Once again I must impress upon the Minister and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that only by ensuring that these regulations are determined by means of an affirmative resolution can we have some ongoing democratic accountability that will be carried out in a proper and structured way in the House, with a debate if the terms that the Government envisage for the regulations are to be changed. 
 At least Ministers say that the governing bodies will be constituted in accordance with regulations. In all too many parts of the Bill, they have not offered even that limited safeguard. To suggest that it be done by regulation, but without including the requirement that it should be under the affirmative resolution procedure, gives the House little protection. As the Minister well knows, unless it is under the affirmative resolution procedure, important changes could be made that will affect the composition of the governing bodies of maintained schools without reference to the House. 
 I have advanced that argument on other clauses, and some Labour Members may think that since it has already been made, it is unnecessary to continue making it. I hope that not only will I continue to make the argument for proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill and its subordinate legislation, but that when the Government find themselves on the Opposition Benches, they will continue to do so and will not have forgotten that there is a value and a purpose in Parliament and the House of Commons. I hope that they will have rediscovered a belief that there is a value in what we do here and that it is concerned with making better law and ensuring that there is genuine democratic accountability. It is an important point and it is one that I have made before. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Ivan Lewis: It is important to start consideration of this part of the Bill by briefly explaining the objectives of the changes that are proposed. First, we intend that the reforms of school governance should provide scope for schools to tailor governance arrangements to reflect their particular and unique circumstances, to ensure that there are adequate safeguards for representation and accountability and also to free governors from activities that are incidental to their primary strategic role. We want a governance framework that facilitates innovation. It is worth making the point that there has been a significant consultation exercise on the proposals, and it is therefore important that that coherent exercise hangs together and that we do not try to unpick it piece by piece. The proposals are in the public domain and were framed largely by the Way Forward Group, whose members include significant national bodies with an interest in governance.
 There was a significant response to the consultation and a generally high level of support. I reiterate to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West a clear commitment to consult widely on the draft regulations and guidance, and to take account of the views and concerns that are expressed in that consultation exercise. 
 I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that that addresses some of his concerns. We intend to explain the proposed regulations on the constitution of governing bodies and other governance regulations in more detail in a policy statement before the Bill goes to the other place.

Graham Brady: That is helpful. Will the Minister also give a commitment that the regulations will be considered under the affirmative procedure? If so, I will withdraw my amendment without further ado.

Ivan Lewis: I am afraid that I cannot give that guarantee. The broad outline of the proposals is in the public domain, and there will be an opportunity for a public consultation that builds on the consultation that has already taken place. As an additional safeguard, we will make our policy statement on the framework available to hon. Members before the Bill leaves the House of Commons.

Eleanor Laing: I have a quick question. Would not it have been more sensible for the Government to make such a policy statement available to hon. Members now, so that we could properly consider the question that the Committee should be scrutinising?

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Lady should have followed the consultation process, which involved a large number of organisations with a specific interest in governance. The process clearly outlined the Government's intentions, to which there has been a response. We have taken account of that response, and we are committed to further consultation on specific regulations that emerge from the process.

Eleanor Laing: The safeguards are not in place, and Committee Members want them for new laws that are passed by the House. I appreciate the Minister's remarks about wider consultation, which we welcome. However, if the Minister is saying that the regulations could not be published because of that consultation, why was the Committee not delayed until we could have the full information necessary to scrutinise what the Government are doing?

Ivan Lewis: The safeguards to which I referred should reassure the hon. Lady, but there is another safeguard that should also address her concern. The procedures of the House make it clear that if an Act further provides that an instrument is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House, any Member may move a prayer to annul the instrument, or to prevent it from coming into force, within 40 days. Hon. Members may use that opportunity if they have further concerns about the regulations.
 There will always be a valid debate about the appropriate balance for prescribing detail in primary legislation, secondary legislation and guidance. We have proposed a package of safeguards and measures that will move school governance arrangements forward in as consensual a way as possible and, most importantly, provide flexibility at local level to enable schools to make governance arrangements that are appropriate to their needs.

Andrew Turner: The process is topsy-turvy, is it not? I am concerned that as recently as 1998, in schedule 9 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the Government legislated on the composition of school governing bodies. Three years later, the Government have a new policy on the issue, which they propose to announce before the Bill is enacted. The Minister thinks that it is adequate to wave through unamended clauses. What if he changes his mind again in three, four or five years? Opinions change, and it is the duty of the House to protect minorities caught up in the change process as well as to accommodate those who may be pushing for change.

Ivan Lewis: We acknowledge that there was some unease and unhappiness about the initial group of proposals. However, we amended them after extensive consultation with key stakeholder groups and have committed ourselves today to consult further on any regulations that we bring forward.
 Perpetual change in school governance structures is not in anyone's interest. We have drawn up radical, flexible proposals which, for the first time, will allow schools to create a governance structure that best meets their needs and allows them to fulfil their responsibilities in an innovative and flexible way. Therefore, having produced regulations after extensive consultation, we do not envisage fundamental changes within the foreseeable future. 
 However, no Minister can say that the Government would not seek further change if it were discovered, for example, that obstacles were preventing the realisation of our objectives. The measure is designed to give governing bodies the strategic power to make decisions in the best interests of their schools. We believe that it is a welcome step forward and that school governing bodies and other key groups support it.

Phil Willis: Will the Minister answer a simple question? If a school is taken over by a private sector for-profit company as a result of an agreement of the governors and with the support of the LEA, can the company appoint a majority of governors to run the new school?

Ivan Lewis: In that scenario, that school would still have to behave in accordance with the safeguards that apply to the appropriate balance of representation on the governing body. That school would be subject to the balance that we have outlined in the consultation process and which we will clarify in regulations.
Mr. Willis rose—

Win Griffiths: Order. I am listening attentively to the debate, as I sat on the Back Benches for the three big education Bills after 1987. We are discussing the affirmative resolution procedure. Although I can see why Members may want to speak on related matters, the next group of amendments, of which there are many, would be a more suitable place to discuss the issue raised by Mr. Willis. I propose that Minister should continue his defence of the Government's position and that any other interventions should relate specifically to the use of the affirmative resolution procedure.

Ivan Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Griffiths.
 As I said, there is a legitimate debate about the appropriate balance between primary and secondary legislation. The various safeguards in the system, which we have explained today, mean that there will be several opportunities for people to express any authentic concern and to influence the regulations that are ultimately produced.

Graham Brady: The Minister was speaking about a balance between primary and secondary legislation, but we are not discussing that. We know that the regulations will be a matter of secondary legislation; we are debating whether the Government should guarantee that the House of Commons will be able to debate that secondary legislation. The Minister has refused to give that assurance, so we are left with the assumption that he intends orders to be introduced in such a way that regulations can be made without reference to or debate in the House of Commons. We are not talking about the balance of primary and secondary legislation, but whether hon. Members have an ability and a right to discuss Government proposals.

Ivan Lewis: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I return to the one that I have been making for a while. The Bill contains sufficient safeguards for adequate scrutiny, involvement and transparency, as well as for our desire to free up governing bodies to make the right decisions in the interests of their schools. We are not simply granting infinite powers with no scrutiny or accountability. We have already demonstrated our willingness to consult, consult and consult again.

Chris Grayling: I really do have to catch the Minister short on that. The reality is that there is provision after provision throughout the legislation that allows the Secretary of State to take decisions without reference to anyone else. Whatever Ministers may say during the debate—that they will publish consultation, guidelines and procedures, or this, that and the other—the legal reality is that they are taking absolute powers in far too many matters. Does the Minister believe that, as we are in a parliamentary democracy, Parliament has a scrutinising right over key issues of policy?

Ivan Lewis: Of course we believe that Parliament has that right, but legislation has always featured the balance that I have mentioned. The question is, in the context of the Bill and our objectives, what is the most appropriate way to present the provisions that allow individual schools to make the right decisions pertaining to governance for their pupils and their communities. The Government have not attempted to conceal their intentions or proposals on governance. We have gone out of our way to consult widely, and demonstrated a willingness to respond to the concerns expressed. Before the Bill is passed, we will present to the House a clear statement of principles underpinning the regulations. Additionally, we are committed to further consult on any regulations that are produced.
Several hon. Members rose—

Ivan Lewis: I just want to make one final point. It has been suggested that hon. Members have no mechanism through which they can secure a debate. That is not the case. If any hon. Member prays against regulations, there could be a debate under negative procedures. That is part of the scrutiny and accountability that exists within the House.

Eleanor Laing: I believe that the Minister is honest when he says that he wants to be open about the Government's actions and I commend him for asserting that consultation is good. Why are the Government so afraid that they feel they must insist on negative rather than affirmative resolution? The Minister said that any hon. Member could pray against the regulations and secure a debate. If that is so, regulations should be considered under affirmative resolution. If the Government are open about the regulations—which they have not put before the Committee—instead of saying ''Uh-oh, if anyone notices what we are doing, they might ask us about it'', they should accept that regulations should be introduced via affirmative procedure. That is all we ask; we are not preventing the Government from implementing what they want. We are not opposed to consultation or assuming that the regulations will be bad. In a democracy, we should have an opportunity on behalf of our constituents—

Win Griffiths: Order. We want interventions, not speeches.

Ivan Lewis: That was a fine intervention, and an even finer speech. We should consider the procedures available to hon. Members when they have difficulty with regulations. It is general practice in the House that an hon. Member can pray against a regulation and any hon. Member who presses for a debate usually secures one. There are numerous safeguards, and I am not quite sure why the hon. Members are concerned about the Government's intentions—

Eleanor Laing: We do not know what they are.

Ivan Lewis: We know what they are because they are outlined in several consultation documents.

Win Griffiths: Order. I will introduce the rules of ''Just a Minute'' shortly. I have heard every argument at least four times now.
Mr. Andrew Turner rose—

Ivan Lewis: I will not give way any more.
 There is no mystery about the Government's proposals to free up governing bodies and help them organise themselves in accordance with their needs and in the best interests of the key people in a school and its community. Debate about the detail remains, which is why we are committed to further consultation on regulations. If hon. Members had followed the debate, the work of the group and the consultation process, they would realise that people are not unaware of the Government's intentions. The argument has been exhausted on both sides and, I believe that we should proceed to a Division, if that is what Opposition Members want.

Chris Grayling: Let me explain the problem that Ministers are presenting to Opposition Members. As we progress through the Bill, Ministers make high-sounding words about clauses that will allow them, in strict legal terms, to take decisions themselves. This clause, for example, is about allowing the Government to set the constitution of governing bodies rather than allowing schools to take decisions in the best interest of governing bodies. The Minister has made all the right noises about the Government's desire to be open, to consult, to take on the views of others and to publish regulations and guidelines. However, let me provide one example of how much credence should be given to such high-sounding words.
 A couple of weeks ago, the Minister for School Standards referred to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on teachers' work loads, which he said was published in an ''open and honest way'' last week. In fact, it was published in the most obscure part of the DFES website and was unfindable by any of the search engines. I discovered its existence only as result of asking a written question. If ever there were an attempt to bury a report, that was it. How can we have any confidence in the Government's protestations of openness about the Bill? It beggars belief that a Government could approach legislation in this way, leaving so many I's undotted and T's uncrossed. The Committee is given promises of guidelines, consultations and so forth before the Bill leaves the House, but why cannot the Government build all these elements into the legislation? Why, as we debate the issues, is it necessary to leave so many avenues unclosed, so many questions open?

Andrew Turner: I echo the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell and applaud him for searching through the website to find the report.
 The Minister's lack of concern was clear when he said that scrutiny and consultation have been adequate. Consultation is not the same as scrutiny. Consultation takes place prior to the drafting of regulations and prior to the passage of legislation. Scrutiny is what happens as the legislation passes through this House. I am amazed that the Minister can come to this Committee with such an inadequate basis on which to rest his case. 
 Only three years ago in 1998, the Government legislated on the composition of governing bodies. Of course we understand that themes change and we applaud the objective of making governing bodies more suitable for the particular needs of individual schools. However, the Minister seems to believe that the recent consultation is the only one necessary and that the policy document that will emerge in response during the passage of the Bill through this House is an adequate basis for us to approve these clauses. He does not seem to envisage the Government changing their mind or that there may be controversial demands for changes to the composition of governing bodies. If such controversial demands were pushed through by legislation and supported by Government in a change of policy or in regulation, they should be approved by affirmative resolution of this House. 
 The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough may have been out of order in saying that the majority of the members of the governing body should be appointed by a private company. The Chairman will tell us whether or not he was.

Win Griffiths: I have already ruled that he was.

Andrew Turner: Then of course I bow to your ruling.

Win Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Turner.

Andrew Turner: The use of an affirmative resolution to confirm that the Government were right to agree that the majority of members of a governing body should be appointed by a private company would surely protect the membership of governing bodies in general.
 I am not clear on all the issues because the Government have not yet come up with a statement of policy. Also, forgive me if I have not read every detail of the response to the consultation; I am human like everyone else on the Opposition Benches. I doubt whether the Minister has read every detail. He would be an extraordinary Minister if he had.

Chris Grayling: He is.

Andrew Turner: He is indeed, but not necessarily in that way. We are not clear what the Government's policy is, so how can we be happy to put it into legislation without at least the possibility of affirmative resolution?

Caroline Flint: I refer to the report of the Select Committee on Education and Skills from the time when I was on the Education Sub-Committee that considered school governors. One of the difficulties identified in that extensive inquiry, to which the Department for Education and Skills responded, was how bound governing bodies were by inflexible structures that prevented recruitment. It must be recognised that in the course of a year or a term of office, a situation within a community can change. A number of schools in my constituency have difficulty encouraging parents to become governors. There are problems with developing community partnerships which well-off communities are able to take advantage of; for example, with lottery funding—

Win Griffiths: Order.

Caroline Flint: I am coming to my point. People from under-developed communities cannot take part in community partnerships in the same way. We see this problem applying also to governing bodies.

Win Griffiths: Order. This amendment is about the affirmative resolution procedure. Although the hon. Lady's point is interesting and well made, I am still struggling to see its relevance to the debate.

Caroline Flint: I take note. My point is that we should seek to deal with the issues raised by the Select Committee—how we can make sure that governing bodies are adaptable and flexible to change to ensure recruitment. I therefore support the Government.

Win Griffiths: The hon. Lady is against the amendment?

Caroline Flint: Yes.

Eleanor Laing: I support the remarks of the hon. Member for Don Valley. Flexibility is to be encouraged. The affirmative resolution procedure would be quicker than the negative resolution procedure, which, as the Minister pointed out, allows a 40-day period during which any Member can pray against the regulations. The negative procedure takes longer, so why will the Government not accept our amendment to make the regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure? That would be quicker, more flexible and therefore more desirable, as the hon. Lady said.

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) has blown the Minister out of the water by showing that all his arguments are completely inappropriate and facile. You said that both sides of the argument had been exhausted, Mr. Griffiths, but I am not sure that I have heard any arguments against the affirmative resolution procedure in this respect. The Minister says that everything was outlined in consultation, but that is not the same as outlining matters in a draft regulation. The Government can consult as widely as they wish and are free to draw conclusions that differ from everything that has gone before. He says that stakeholders have been consulted.
 The one group that appears not to be a stakeholder in the process is elected Members of Parliament, who represent school governors, parents and children in constituencies throughout the country. The Minister is clearly willing to consult every group except MPs. 
 If the Minister were prepared to accept the affirmative resolution procedure, we need not have had the debate. He says, ''Of course, we believe in the right of scrutiny'', but he refuses to accept that the regulations should be subject to that procedure. According to the Minister, if any Member prays against a negative resolution, there will almost always be a debate. My experience is that, even if the official Opposition pray against the resolution, there is frequently no debate. 
 The Minister could resolve the matter simply by assuring us that, if the Opposition prayed against a negative resolution on the matter, we would be granted a debate. I would take his word for that; I do not need the provision to be in the Bill as long as he guarantees a debate. [Interruption.] The representative of the usual channels is chuntering from a sedentary position.

John Heppell: I might like that, as might my hon. Friend the Minister, but I do not think that it is within his gift to grant anyone a debate.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the Government Whip, because we are now getting to the nub of the matter. The Minister's defence is that the affirmative resolution procedure is not needed, because even under the negative procedure, any Member can secure a vote, but now the Whip confirms that that is not the case. In all probability, as with vast swathes of the Government's proposals, the regulations, whatever they say, will be waved through. Regardless of what hon. Members think, there will be no opportunity to debate or vote on them.
 This matter is extremely important, but the Minister has not given adequate assurances and is not even prepared to give the assurance that I wanted that, under the negative procedure, we would be granted a debate on the regulations if we sought one. In those circumstances, I have no option but to urge my hon. Friends to support the amendment. If Government Members believe in Parliament's scrutiny function, in what the Committee is meant to be doing and that all MPs should earn their living, they will support the amendment, too. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Phil Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 213, in page 11, leave out line 37 and insert—
'(2) A governing body shall consist of—'.

Win Griffiths: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 166, in page 11, line 39, after 'school,', insert
'who in the case of a community, community nursery, community special, foundation or special foundation school shall constitute not less than one third of members of the governing body.'.
 No. 176, in page 11, line 40, at end insert— 
'(bb) persons employed as teaching staff at the school.'.
 No. 138, in page 12, line 2, after 'governors', insert 
'who shall, except in the case of a voluntary controlled school, constitute a majority of members of the governing body,'.
 No. 177, in page 12, line 4, at end insert— 
'(g) where a contract for school improvement has been agreed, representatives of the contractor.'.
 No. 149, in page 12, line 4, at end insert— 
'(2A) Regulations made under subsection (2) shall provide that the persons mentioned in (b) of subsection (2) shall include such numbers of persons employed to work as teachers at the school as may be appropriate having regard to the total number of teachers so employed.'.
 No. 221, in page 12, line 4, at end insert— 
'(2A) The governing body of a community school shall have— 
 (a) at least one-third of the membership from persons who are parents of registered pupils at the school at the time of their election or appointment, 
 (b) no more than one-third of the membership who shall be employees who work at the school, 
 (c) at least one-fifth of the membership shall be persons appointed by the local education authority, and 
 (d) the remaining governors shall be appointed as community governors by the existing governors at the time of the appointment.'.
 No. 236, in page 12, line 22, after 'bodies,' insert— 
'(3A) No person may be a member of the governing body of a school who— 
 (a) is a member or employee of the maintaining local education authority having executive responsibility for education, or 
 (b) is a member of the maintaining local education authority having responsibility for scrutinising delivery of education including by that school.'.

Phil Willis: I am grateful to you, Mr. Griffiths, for allowing me this brief opportunity to speak. Given your ruling, I feel chastened, especially after some of the later contributions to the previous debate.
 One purpose of legislative scrutiny is to explore the worst, not the best, scenario of a measure. Like other members of the Committee, I have a high regard for the integrity of the Minister for School Standards and his colleagues. We take them on, not to dispute what they say or because we disbelieve them, but to show that the Bill may be used in different ways. 
 My question is highly pertinent to the affirmative resolution procedure. Let us suppose that a school is given, and uses, the earned autonomy and freedoms in clause 1, and decides to invite a private sector company—or a public school, because that is also an available option—to run the school. Should the company be able to appoint the majority of governors, according to its particular persuasion? The Minister said that the answer was no, but he is being more economical with the truth than he should be. For example, in the case of King's Manor in Guildford, Surrey, when the 3Es company was invited to take over the school—whatever we think of it, it was Surrey county council's decision—the company made it clear that unless it had a majority on the governing body, it would not do it. Is it the desired objective that decisions of such magnitude on a school's freedoms are taken by governing bodies? Do we have to wait for regulations to stop it? If it is the desired objective, it needs an affirmative resolution in the House, but we are not going to get that.

David Miliband: Is that different from the situation of a foundation school, which has a majority of governors from the foundation?

Phil Willis: When I explain the purpose of my amendment it will answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
 On foundation governing bodies there is a balance of all the interested parties. I am concerned about what happens when there is no such a balance. Hon. Members should not get me wrong; there is a legitimate argument for what is being proposed, but my point is that there should be a way of scrutinising and challenging it in the House. 
 The Minister's next disingenuous comment—I was going to say lie, but that would be unfair—was that consultation is the answer to all these matters. But there was consultation in 1998 following the School Standards and Framework Act, then there was the report of the exceedingly good Select Committee, on which the hon. Member for Don Valley and I served, when we considered the issue of governors and governance. There was a belated response from the Secretary of State to the Select Committee's report, but nothing happened as a result of that consultation. There was another consultation, ''The Way Forward—A Modernised Framework For School Governors''. 
 What is being proposed for governors in the legislation bears no relation to the responses from governors in the consultation. The National Association of Governors and Managers—a principal organisation that represents governors—is a consultee on governance. It is interesting to note what it says about the current state of affairs: 
''Leave us alone to get on with the job. Stop fiddling with the constituent numbers of governors . . . I don't see the point of changing the governing body constitution so soon . . . I was amazed to read that it is proposed to change the constitution of governing bodies it is only two years since the last change!''
 Those changes came into operation only last September. The last thing that the governors are asking for is more change. They simply want stability. The purpose of the amendments, which my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and I tabled, is to try to impose some order on the Bill. There should be no need for regulation on governors or the make-up of the governing bodies, as long as there is enough flexibility in the Bill to be able to achieve the Government's purpose. 
 Why do the Government need to prescribe that the head teacher shall be a member of the governing body in clause 18(2)(f), but do not need to prescribe anyone else? We cannot have it both ways. The purpose of amendment No. 213 is to try to ensure that the categories of membership of the governing body are included in the Bill. We do not want regulations. The amendments would insert into the Bill the composition of the governing bodies, and would ensure that key groups do not lose their right to positions on those bodies. That is not too revolutionary, and it is reasonable. 
 Amendment No. 221 applies only to community schools and proposes a simple mechanism, although the Minister and his advisers may have a simpler one. The consultation document set out the proportion of governors of the various categories of school. That is not revolutionary, but has come from the responses to the Government's consultation. The key components were that a third of the members should be parents, which is reasonable, no more than a third should be school employees, at least a fifth should be appointed by the LEA, and the remaining members should be appointed as community governors by the existing governors at the time of appointment. 
 That system has worked well until now. It is a simple way of inserting into the Bill the composition of the governing bodies, and everything works within it. We do not need regulations or affirmative procedures, if all that is already in the Bill. I defy the Minister to show me where that system was rejected in the consultation. He knows that the National Association of Governors and Managers, other associations that represent governors, and every professional association supported that approach.

Stephen O'Brien: Although it is difficult to go all the way with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough in his absolute prescription, he will recognise the concerns of the companies that will be involved. We discussed those concerns extensively in our debates on clauses 10 and 11, but sadly not on clause 12. The hon. Gentleman referred to the King's Manor example, and I defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West who was much more an architect of the scheme that was applied. Any company that is interested in the process will be anxious about control. The composition of a governing body is germane to the Government's scheme to incorporate companies. That will be dependent on the provisions: the confusion abounds.

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am heading him off via the amendment, which would not allow for the King's Manor situation to arise. We disagree on the composition, but the Government are prescribing for the situation. They do not understand the consequences of the legislation, and this probing amendment should encourage the Minister to revisit it.
 When a parent considers a school, the two key people are the head and the class teacher. Parents perceive those individuals to be the school, but they do not consider the governing body in the same light. We like to think that they do, because many of us were governors, but that is not the case. Young people also perceive their teachers to be the key people in the school. That is right and proper, and the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) is nodding his approval—[Interruption.]

Win Griffiths: Order.

Phil Willis: I am sorry, Mr. Griffiths.

Win Griffiths: I realise that you were tempted.

Phil Willis: You are supposed to protect me from temptation, Mr. Griffiths.
 It is important that the head teacher is a member of the governing body, although I recognise that that is optional. I preferred to be a member of the governing body. 
 I know that Hansard may not record this, but I had a chair of governors who insisted on signing every order, and a £3.5 million budget meant many orders. Sometimes, one has to protect governors from their own enthusiasm. [Interruption.] If the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills were as good at his explanations as he is at asides, he would be a brilliant Minister. I should not have said that: he is a nice chap. 
 Teachers are at the heart of the school, and are perceived by parents and children as important. We should ensure that teachers participate in governing bodies. The Minister proposes that we should have only one category of staff governor. That may be more democratic, but if a vote occurs in a school, teachers will always win because they can assemble more votes. That means that support staff would be dismissed. Support staff have been excluded from governing bodies for a long time, and that is wrong because they are an important part of the school framework. 
 Amendment No. 149 would 
''include such numbers of persons employed to work as teachers at the school . . . having regard to the total number of teachers so employed''.
 The number of teacher governors and staff governors would depend on the total number of staff. We want to instil some sense and order into the organisation of school governing bodies. The last thing governors want is yet another reorganisation. They want to strip out their current needless responsibilities, yet there is virtually nothing in the part on governance to reduce the work load of governors. It merely throws them into more chaos about the reorganisation of governing bodies. I remain doubtful whether it will do anything for standards in our schools. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

Graham Brady: I shall be brief. We have had the beginnings of an important debate, fleshing out the bare bones of the clause. Important amendments lie ahead, but I am focusing now on amendments Nos. 176 and 177, of which amendment No. 176 is the more important.
 The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough was right in his assessment of the centrality of the head and the teaching staff to a school's worth. Most people regard it as appropriate for teaching staff to be represented on a school's governing body. They can obviously represent the general interests of teaching staff and also provide invaluable insight into the challenges and difficulties of a particular school. The governors, as a corporate body, should be aware of those challenges and be able to draw on the experience of teachers in their wider deliberations. 
 I do not go so far as the hon. Gentleman in amendment No. 149, which is designed to secure a proportionate number of teachers on the governing body relative to the size of a school's teaching staff. However, the Bill should contain the stipulation that at least one member of the teaching staff should serve on each governing body. Amendment No. 176 would achieve that. 
 I accept that under the regulations Ministers would have the power to stipulate that at least one member of the teaching staff should be appointed on all governing bodies, but once again we are confronted with a Bill in which that stipulation has been resisted. It is a glaring omission from the Bill and should be viewed as a serious cause for concern by the teaching profession, which seeks greater security from the Bill. We must all be concerned about Ministers' true intentions. If it is always their intention for a member of the teaching staff to have a place on the governing body, they should have no difficulty building it into the Bill. If that is not their intention, they should come clean and admit it. The Committee and the public should know about it. 
 The amendment is straightforward. I hope that the Minister will accept that it would hugely reassure not only the teaching profession but all who are interested in the good governance of our schools and want a proper balance on the governing body. 
 Amendment No. 177 is more of a probing amendment. Reference has already been made to the experience of King's Manor. Concerns have been expressed and a company formed to deal with a school. Where corporate risk is a factor, the position for a major contractor or corporate partner must be clear—

Caroline Flint: If a contractor is engaged to provide a service, why should that person or organisation have a place on a governing body? There might be a specification in the contract that bound the two organisations together in terms of what is being provided.

Graham Brady: The hon. Lady is quite right. The amendment is permissive. It would not require representatives, but it would make provision for the possibility of representatives of the contractor on the governing body. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for South Shields has a great deal to offer the Committee if he chooses to break away. Uncharitably I suggested earlier that he was doing his Christmas cards. Now we know that he was scribbling the early rough drafts of the European constitution. We should leave him to it. That is obviously more important than the governance of our maintained schools.
 This is a permissive amendment. It would allow for the representation of contractors on the governing body. I have said that it is a probing amendment and that I seek the Minister's view on whether and in what circumstances it would be appropriate for contractors to be represented on the governing body. I am sure that the whole Committee will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Andrew Turner: Two of the amendments in the group are my responsibility. Amendment No. 166 merely repeats something that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has included in one of his amendments: parents should always be entitled to form one third of the composition of a governing body. Amendment No. 138 safeguards the position of the foundation in any school. The Bill merely provides that representatives of the foundation shall be appointed but does not safeguard the position of the foundation in a foundation or voluntary aided school to the extent that the churches demanded when the Education Act 1986 and the Education Reform Act 1988 were going through Parliament.
 I would be surprised if the Government proposed to reduce the number of foundation governors in a foundation or a voluntary aided school. They are not as foolish as Stalin, who is said to have asked how many divisions the Pope had. The Pope, as we know, has a large number of divisions in this country and quite dangerous they are from time to time. No Government with any sense would oppose them. But Governments have done so in the past and certainly if some right hon. and hon. Members were in the Minister's position they might want to reduce the number of foundation governors in voluntary aided and foundation schools. 
 These two amendments merely tighten up the requirements. Again, why are the Government so averse to providing detail? What do they want to be able to do? Do they wish to be able to reduce the representation of the churches on the governing bodies of voluntary aided schools? Do they wish to be able to reduce parent representation on the governing bodies of schools in general?

Adrian Bailey: I find the hon. Gentleman's remarks somewhat odd. The whole thrust of the Opposition's argument on Second Reading was that the Government were hell bent on centralising, but he now seems to argue that the legislation should be more centralist and prescriptive.

Andrew Turner: Perhaps I may ask the hon. Gentleman's forgiveness. I clearly have not explained clearly enough as I did not when I intervened on the Minister to say ''Physician, deregulate thyself''. There is a great deal of merit in the Government deregulating schools. There is enormous merit in the Government deregulating teachers and some merit in the Government deregulating LEAs. However, if the Government deregulate the Government it merely prevents Members of Parliament from scrutinising what the Government are doing and prevents those outside from understanding the framework within which the Government are operating.
 The Government in this country have sometimes been described as an elected dictatorship. That is our fault because we allow them to get elected, but it does not allow them total moral freedom to move in any direction they wish. They have gone to the trouble of bringing a Bill before Parliament that entitles them to act in any way they wish. Well, jolly good. Congratulations. They observed at least that facet of the constitution. 
 However, deregulating the Government is not deregulation. I applaud the Government when they genuinely deregulate, but deregulation is about deregulating the poor blighters who have to deliver education—the governors, teachers and local education authorities. 
 I wish to make just one more observation. Two of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough referred to King's Manor. I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that his amendment No. 221 would not prevent a similar situation recurring. I declare an interest as one of the two shareholders in a company that provides education services to local education authorities. King's Manor was converted from a county to a voluntary aided school so that the company that won the contract to run it could be appointed as the foundation, which, in turn, would be able to appoint the majority of foundation governors. The procedure took some time to work out, and we had to be convinced that the then Secretary of State, the present Home Secretary, was happy with it. I am pleased to say that he was open to that private sector intervention. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough's amendment does not prevent such a course being followed in future, and I applaud it for that reason.

Chris Grayling: The amendments and the clause to which they relate are about a totally unnecessary addition to the responsibilities of schools and governing bodies. As hon. Members suggested, the Government last attempted to regulate the structure of governing bodies a short time ago. Thus, the response from governing bodies and their representatives to the new proposals has been, ''Not again.'' Why is it necessary to add yet another set of tasks to the agendas of governing bodies? The effect of the clause will be that governing bodies will, once again, have to work their way through the meaning of the changes and make adjustments accordingly. That is totally unnecessary. I have much sympathy for the amendment of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, which says that regulations are not appropriate.
 Equally, there are glaring omissions from the stipulations. Amendment No. 176 refers to the absence of any mention of teaching staff. I have reached the inescapable conclusion that the Government are again making stipulations that will add no value whatever to our schools but will add to the work load and create confusion as governing bodies try to work out what changes they must make and how the new regulations affect their constitution. None of that helps solve the problems in classrooms. 
 The Ministers said that the Government are trying to deregulate. How can it be deregulatory to change the constitutions of governing bodies again and to provide yet another set of legal documents that governors must go through to decide whether they are doing the right or the wrong thing? Why is it necessary to provide more, not fewer, regulations? The measure states: 
''Regulations shall provide for a governing body''.
 Why do we need more regulations? Do Ministers really not understand the challenges that face our schools, such as discipline in the classroom and excessive bureaucracy? How do the provisions address those two issues in any way?

David Miliband: We have discussed the amendments for 40 minutes, but not once have we discussed the potential contribution that governing bodies, or even reforms to governing bodies, could make to higher standards. In the remaining minutes, will the hon. Gentleman address the possibility—

Phil Willis: That would be out of order.

David Miliband: It would not be out of order to address the possibility that changes to governing bodies could contribute to the Bill's overall purpose.

Chris Grayling: Were I to respond specifically to that intervention, Mr. Griffiths, I suspect that you would rule me out of order. Suffice it to say that the requirements of the new regulations will certainly make it more difficult for governing bodies to find time to devote to issues that relate to standards. That is why it is important to consider the amendments and ask whether we need to go through the process again for governing bodies. Have Ministers nothing better to do than to return to those bodies and say, ''Time for a change, guys. It's only been two years since the last change''? We should give them a chance.

Ivan Lewis: We have had an interesting debate, in which a number of important issues have been raised. On objectives, I do not think that there is a great difference between hon. Members on the ultimate composition of governing bodies. In addition, I see little point in going over the argument that we had about the balance between primary legislation and regulations. We have spent a long time on those issues, so I shall focus on the amendments and the clauses to which they relate.
 It is important to clarify the comments of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough on the private sector controlling a governing body.

Phil Willis: It does at King's Manor.

Ivan Lewis: I shall come to that.
 Under clause 18, there is provision for a maximum of two additional governors where the governing body has a financial or other sponsor, but I stress that they will not form the majority. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, the only governing body constitution that provides for a majority is the voluntary aided model. For the reasons that he will know more about than us, King's Manor school in Surrey, which is run by 3E's, became a voluntary aided school. A private company did not control the school; its status as a voluntary aided school was the key to the governing body's composition, as the hon. Gentleman explained. 
 I have a question that the hon. Gentleman might like to answer later in the proceedings, although it is directly relevant to his declaration of an interest. I think that he referred to being a shareholder in a company that provides services to local education authorities. In the declaration of interests, he described himself as a registered shareholder in the Empire Packet Company Ltd. and referred to no other registerable shareholding. Is that the company that provides the services? That is the only shareholding that is declared in the Register of Members' Interests.

Phil Willis: The Minister has asked a pertinent question that relates to whether someone with a shareholding in a company that could be a direct beneficiary of the Bill should serve on the Standing Committee that considers it. However, that is a matter for the hon. Member in question, not for me or the Minister.
 I want to return the Minister to the thrust of his comments about governance and foundation governors. I accept the point, as I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, although I suspect that he now wishes that he had not commented. Is the Minister saying that clause 1 would allow any governing body to become a foundation school and follow the innovation of King's Manor school—now King's college—in allowing a company, perhaps even that of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, to take over and run the school?

Win Griffiths: The question was in the context of the constitution of the governing body.

Ivan Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Griffiths.
 It would be unusual to believe that in most cases, companies would be attracted to creating a structure for a voluntary aided school. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will know, profit-making establishments would be required to contribute 10 per cent. of the capital contribution. We do not believe that they are likely to go down that route. 
 The hon. Member for Isle of Wight may be involved in the next 3E's project, but the school in the previous project was a foundation, not voluntary aided school. No such majority exists anymore on the governing body of a foundation school. Only a voluntary aided school would guarantee a majority on the governing body, and it is highly unlikely that private companies, which have to make a profit, will want to make a 10 per cent. contribution to costs. The fact that 3E's has changed its approach demonstrates that.

Phil Willis: I hope that you do not cut us off on this debate, Mr. Griffiths, because it is an incredibly important part of the Bill.

Win Griffiths: It is about the constitution.

Phil Willis: It is about the constitution, but it is an important part of the whole Bill.
 We must examine the other aspects of the Bill that impact on this part. Governance is only one element of what the Government are trying to do throughout the Bill. We should imagine a scenario in which Surrey county council encourages 3E's to take over all the schools in Guildford, and they all become voluntary aided. The company accepts that it will get 10 per cent. less capital, but, because every single penny of the revenue funding is still provided by the Government and taxpayer, that is the only loss. What would prevent it, under joint governance, from creating one governing body for all the schools, which is allowed in the legislation, and then saying that the company's objectives would be furthered by closing one school and developing the site for housing? As some sites in Guildford are incredibly valuable, that is how companies would make their profit. If I were a private sector company, I would examine all my assets and decide whether to dispose of them. 
 I am not raising the question for a point of debate, but for the reality of what the Government want to do with the legislation and whether a joint governing body, either through a foundation or voluntary aided status, could assume those powers and earn its money in that way. There are areas in the south-east in which huge killings could be made.

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman made a fair point. However, companies do not get 10 per cent. less; they get nothing without making a 10 per cent. contribution. It would seem unlikely that a private sector company, which would have to consider its profit-making responsibilities, would want to go down that road.
 It was suggested that companies may dispose of land and buildings if they were part of a federated structure—for example, if they decided to close the school—but current legislation prevents their doing so. It would not allow them simply to take the land and buildings and dispose of them as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Phil Willis: If a company planned to close the school, sell it and invest a significant part of the proceeds in, for example, four schools in Guildford—I do not know how many there are—the proposal would go to the Secretary of State, who, given the current scenario, I think would not say no.

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that such a proposal would go to the Secretary of State. No Secretary of State representing this Government would regard it as a contribution to raising standards to flog off land and buildings simply to boost a company's profits. There must be a full consultation process and the company would have to show that its decisions were not about its profit-making interests but about raising standards. There are some circumstances in which a governing body, of any status, can show clearly that changing the status quo and closing a school will significantly raise standards and offer a better quality of education to pupils and, in the context of extended schools and policy development in the area, offer a wider and enhanced service to the community.
 Whatever the structure of the governing body, the key is that it must be able to demonstrate that the rationale behind the decision was as I have outlined. The Secretary of State would seek explicit advice on whether it had been shown that such a proposal authentically and transparently led to an improvement in standards, which is what the power to innovate is all about. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough must be aware of that safeguard. In a situation such as that described by the hon. Gentleman, in which an LEA took the route on a wholesale basis, which would ring alarm bells with some members of the Committee, it would require extremely close scrutiny to show that the measures taken by the governing body or a federation of governing bodies were objectively justifiable and contributed towards— 
Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) rose—
Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury) rose—

Ivan Lewis: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to give him the opportunity to answer my question.

Andrew Turner: Even section 1 powers would not be required in the case of Rutland county council, for example, as there are only two secondary schools and a small number of primary schools in Rutland. It would be easy to form a federation of such schools in the circumstances to which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough referred. Local education authorities throughout the country are constantly closing schools with the argument that it would raise standards to do so. If the approval of only the school organisation committee were required, it would be dominated by the federation, which, under the Minister's proposals, would have only one governing body, not a series of them. The Minister has yet to show that his proposals are watertight.

Ivan Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he failed to answer my earlier question. On his substantive point, we have shown clearly that the existing law offers sufficient safeguards to prevent unscrupulous behaviour by a company as part of a governing body in making decisions without regard to raising standards or the best educational interests of the school. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough was justifiably concerned about that risk, but there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that it will not happen. If Opposition Members do not agree, I respect that difference.
 The Secretary of State would look closely at the detail of any such proposals to ensure that they were motivated by and relevant to the general power to innovate, which is about raising standards.

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have been waiting to pick up a couple of points that he made in response to previous interventions. I believe that he was present when the Minister for School Standards was answering questions. Although his hon. Friend made it clear that procurement companies were not intended to operate for profit, he has freely used the profit motive in his description of the defence. The Minister for School Standards indicated that land and buildings would not be part of the assets that could be held by companies, but the Under-Secretary has appeared to indicate that they could be. Where corporate entities are to be deployed in the use of the school budget, it was intended that they would not operate for profit.
 I would like to believe that the Under-Secretary is on top of his brief. I know that his hon. Friends on the Back Benches are proud of his performance today. However, it is extraordinary that he prays in aid that no Labour Secretary of State would wish to use the powers freely asked for in this Bill in a way that he found unacceptable. It may not have occurred to him, however much his supporters take the view that they will always be in power, that there is a democratic process in this country. It is possible that the powers the Government are seeking might be used by others with whom he would not have political sympathy. He needs to be careful. I ask him at least to be consistent with his fellow Minister and to recognise that his answers have given rise to a sense of discord among Opposition Members. Those of us who are trying to understand the Bill's purpose need to be enlightened, and his answers so far have been inadequate.

Ivan Lewis: As my hon. Friend the Minister said earlier, there will be no transfer of assets to the private sector. There are other companies as well as those formed by schools. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough was referring to a situation where a private company had a controlling interest on the governing body. That is a different point from that made by my hon. Friend earlier in the proceedings. He talked about the capacity to transfer land and buildings to a private company.
 The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough's point was that in a situation where a private company had a controlling interest on a governing body, it could, for reasons other than raising educational standards, make decisions not in the best interests of education provision. I believe that there are sufficient safeguards on the statute book to prevent any private company with perceived ulterior motives from taking such a course of action. The hon. Member for Eddisbury should not be patronising and arrogant. We are aware that democracy means that Governments change from time to time. The legislation is in the best interests of the education system, and that is entirely proper. A future Secretary of State, including one representing another political party, would have at their disposal the laws—[Hon. Members: ''Precisely.'']—on the statute at the time. 
 The Government are acting in the best interests of schools and young people in this country. We are introducing deregulation and we are freeing up schools. It would be ludicrous to introduce those integral changes without addressing governance.

Chris Grayling: On a point of information, Mr. Griffiths. The Minister referred to legislative safeguards. Can he clarify which legislation provides them?

Ivan Lewis: Any proposal would have to be considered under the Bill. If a governing body, or a federation of such bodies, wanted to implement the far-reaching proposals suggested by hon. Members, they would be required to gain approval for that decision. It would be scrutinised to ensure that it was consistent with the objective of raising educational standards.
 Hon. Members have asked why we should rock the boat by shaking up the system. They argue that governing bodies want a period of stability in which the status quo would prevail. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and I share many views on a range of issues, but one of the characteristic views of the Liberal Democrats on education is the maintenance and preservation of the status quo. I am realistic enough to realise that some people in education want to be left alone, and do not want reform. The Government are impatient to introduce change because we are not satisfied that enough mechanisms are in place to raise standards to the right level. That will ensure that all young people have the opportunity to fulfil their potential. 
 The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough does not support the Government's current proposals for specialist schools, and accuses us of creating a two-tier system. We intend that every secondary school that wants specialist status should have the opportunity to achieve it. In four years, we will ensure that 50 per cent. of those schools are given that opportunity. We are not satisfied that the current secondary schools system enables the desired number of young people to fulfil their potential. By 2005, 50 per cent. of secondary schools will have specialist status. That is not about accepting the status quo, under which we still do not give enough young people the chance to fulfil their potential. I raise that point, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough says that we need stability, which is often a code word for status quo. The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that the status quo should prevail. That is also true of our discussion about governing bodies. None of us has paid tribute to the work done by governors throughout the country in running schools. They are volunteers who make a massive contribution towards raising standards. If we are to introduce a radical reform agenda to improve standards, it is vital that there is synergy between the variety of policies to implement those changes and giving the governors whom we are asking to deliver the modernisation agenda the opportunity to have the appropriate and relevant structures.

Graham Brady: The Minister has rightly paid tribute to the excellent work that is done by governors, especially as they are volunteers. Will he shed light on the power under subsection (3)(f) to pay allowances to governors?

Ivan Lewis: I shall come to that later.
 The problem with amendment No. 213 is that it would define the membership of the governing body only as set out in the clause. That would be insufficient without greater detail, and would not allow us to prescribe that detail in regulations. The regulation-making power under clause 18(2) will work with the allied power in clause 18(3), so that we can implement our commitment that at least one teacher will have a place on the governing body. Hon. Members were concerned about that. The Government have repeatedly put on record that that is guaranteed. 
 On amendment No. 166, we intend to provide in regulations that at least a third of the places on school governing bodies should be taken by parents.

Chris Grayling: Once again, the Minister has used the phrase, ''we intend to provide in regulations.'' Why does everything in the Bill have to be, ''we intend'', rather than simply being provided?

Ivan Lewis: I have already made that point. We have already debated at length the balance between primary legislation and regulations, and I will not go through that again. It is neither appropriate nor desirable.
 I want to reassure members of the Committee on issues relating to teaching staff, which were mentioned in relation to amendment No. 176. It is important that non-teaching staff are valued equally as part of the team, and we do not believe that they have been given sufficient status. Hon. Members may recall an unhelpful comment, apparently out of context, by a leader of a major teaching union. We believe that support staff will become increasingly important in raising standards and delivering the education that we want and expect. Amendment No. 176 would provide a separate stakeholder group for teachers on the governing body, which would exclude support staff.

Phil Willis: With respect, this is becoming a farce. The Minister has told us that he is going to include in regulations the fact that there has to be a teacher. We are now talking about non-teaching staff. We have reached a situation where there might be just one member of the staff, which is what it says on the Bill. Are the governor's posts to be shared?

Ivan Lewis: That is not an accurate reflection of what we have said. Instead of defining the representation of staff on the governing body simply as teachers, it is about time we recognised that a broader group of staff contributes to schools. We guarantee that there will be least one member of the teaching staff as part of the staff representation. The teacher representation could, within reason, be proportionate to the size that the governing body ultimately determines appropriate. Appropriate representation from the staff team would include at least one, but by no means a maximum of one teacher as part of that group.
 I do not see how that is contradictory. We simply want to recognise in this change to governance arrangements that, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will know better than most, when we talked in the past about staff representation on governing bodies, it was by and large the head teacher and teachers. Sadly in only a few cases have staff other than teaching staff been represented on governing bodies.

Phil Willis: The Minister made an insulting remark about me in terms of the status quo. The current governing body must have a member of the teaching staff and a member of the non-teaching staff. That is the current regulation. The Government want to get rid of that and we have had to have all this rigmarole over the last half an hour to put it back.

Ivan Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that on most governing bodies there are significantly more teacher representatives than representatives from non-teaching staff. Is that not the case?

Phil Willis: With respect, the Minister should read the current regulations on governors. All primary schools are allowed to have one staff governor and one non-teaching governor, plus the head teacher. We simply ask that that be put in the Bill.

Ivan Lewis: A concern was expressed that we were in some way blurring the right to have on the governing body a teacher representative. I made it clear that there will be guaranteed representation from at least one member of the teaching staff. That is the assurance that hon. Members sought and I am pleased to give it. There is also the possibility for governing bodies to choose a membership model that suits them best within a framework of principle. If a governing body wants more than one teacher, it has the capacity to adopt a larger model to make that possible. It is right that the size of the governing body should not necessarily be determined by the size of the teaching force or the size of the school. A governing body should choose a membership model best suited to discharge its duties and responsibilities in the particular circumstances of the school.
 On amendment No. 138, I cannot accept the aspirations of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. We returned earlier today to attempts to introduce assisted places and now the hon. Gentleman wants to return to the old grant-maintained framework. We see no case for providing a controlling interest for foundation governors at foundation schools. The hon. Gentleman clearly wants to take us back to grant-maintained status, but we have no intention of agreeing to it. 
 The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 tried to move away from the old divisions. Governing bodies' constitutions for foundation schools must reflect the legitimate interest of the partners with a role in running those schools. Detailed membership will be set out in regulations and will provide a balance between the various groups. No one group will be allowed to dominate, which is an important and widely supported principle. 
 Amendment No. 177 is unnecessary. As noted earlier, the Secretary of State is allowed, under subsection (2)(f), to prescribe in the regulations any other person who should be included. If circumstances require it, the wording will allow the inclusion of a school improvement contractor. However, building the requirement into the Bill would require the contractor to be included on the governing body irrespective of the particular contract—and we are not convinced that that is desirable. 
 Amendment No. 221 would introduce a level of detail about the membership of governing bodies purely for one category of school. In framing the legislation, community schools should not be handled differently from foundation or voluntary schools, though the different status will affect the balance of interests between the various stakeholder groups. The provisions are complex and—however unpopular with Opposition Members—I reiterate that we intend to build the details into regulations. 
 Amendment No. 221 suggests proposals for the membership of community schools that differ from the guiding principles set out in consultation. The Way Forward Group recommended that a fifth of members should be LEA appointees, but the amendment specifies ''at least one fifth'', which clearly raises the possibility of additional LEA members. The amendment also suggests that additional LEA places could be obtained at the expense of the community category because it provides only for ''the remaining governors'' to be appointed as community governors, which the Bill proposes should constitute at least one fifth. We believe that community governors represent an important group of external interests and there is no question of reducing their influence on governing bodies. 
 Amendment No. 236 would effectively prevent elected members with executive responsibility for education, members of scrutiny committees or anyone employed by an LEA from serving on a governing body—

Andrew Turner: Amendment No. 236 has not been moved.

Win Griffiths: Order. It is in the group.

Ivan Lewis: Amendment No. 236 may also have the unintended consequence of preventing head teachers of community schools from serving as governors for their school. I am sure that that is not the hon. Gentleman's intention.
 Existing regulations contain restrictions as to which persons are eligible to serve in certain categories on a governing body; for example, elected members are not allowed to serve as co-opted, appointed parent or partnership governors. LEA employees are not eligible for appointment as parent or partnership governors. I offer further reassurance that we intend to continue with such protective provisions, subject to consultation. However, I must disappoint hon. Members who want to exclude LEA elected members or employees from governorship in the LEA area. We consulted widely about that, and we believe that our proposals met with agreement. 
 We have had a comprehensive debate, notwithstanding the differences about primary legislation and regulation. Given the Government's assurances, particularly about teachers and the concerns of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough about private companies, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Brady: The Minister has made an extraordinarily long contribution to the proceedings—possibly the longest we have had. The question arises whether he was trying to talk out his own Bill. Certainly, the contribution will ensure that we have no opportunity to debate amendments Nos. 167, 161, 168, 248, 169 and 57, and the whole of schedule 1 and clauses 19 to 24.

Phil Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. As I moved the lead amendment in this group, do I have the right to wind up after the Minister?

Win Griffiths: I hope that Mr. Brady will be brief and that you will have the last word. We are finishing in three minutes.

Graham Brady: I am against the clock, so I shall do my best. When the Minister has a chance to check the facts, he may wish to reflect on whether it was wise to cast aspersions on the integrity of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, who did everything that was appropriate, and probably more, in declaring his interest.

Ivan Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Brady: No, the Minister has ensured that I do not have time. His response to amendment No. 176 was unsatisfactory. The suggestion that he must maintain parity of esteem between non-teaching and teaching staff is nonsense. By accepting the amendment to subsection (2), the two groups would stand beside each other. The amendment would achieve precisely what the Minister said that he wanted by providing categories for teaching staff and for others who work at the school. His response was entirely inadequate, and I will seek to press amendment No. 176 to a vote.

Phil Willis: The past three quarters of an hour have been very sad for those who have a genuine regard for the work of governors. Those of us who have read the consultation documents that have come back from governors will know that the one thing that governors want is to be left alone; they do not want further change.
 The Government's response did not present a single argument in favour of their proposals. The Liberal Democrats do not expect Ministers to know every aspect of every piece of legislation, and it is unrealistic for hon. Members to believe that they should. However, I expect Ministers to understand Bills and their intentions, and the Minister has been unconvincing in his responses. 
 If we are honest, Opposition Members are divided on what we are trying to achieve for governing bodies. We come from different perspectives. We are trying only to ensure that key groups have automatic representation by right in the Bill. 
 It being five minutes to Ten o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D, [28 June] and the Orders of the Committee [11, 13 and 18 December], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. 
 Amendment negatived. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 176, in page 11, line 40, at end insert— 
'(bb) persons employed as teaching staff at the school.'.—[Mr. Brady.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 1 agreed to. 
 Clauses 19 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Ten o'clock till Tuesday 8 January at half-past Ten o'clock.